Founded in 1971, Purchase College, State University of New York (SUNY) is one of sixty-four colleges and universities that make up the largest public university system in the United States. The State University of New York system was written into law in 1948 by Governor Thomas E. Dewey and was dramatically expanded by Nelson A. Rockefeller during his four terms as Governor from 1959 to 1973. "Rockefeller saw a grand panorama of prize-winning buildings spread across the state that would offer the best assortment of learning environments anywhere. Students could choose among them and, within their architecturally outstanding walls, grow under a cadre of superior educators wooed from the best universities" (Bleeker 168). To do so, Rockefeller created the State University Construction Fund (SUCF) in 1962 in order to meet the increased demand for higher education resulting from population growth. The Fund, initially lead by a three-person board of trustees, one overall architect and one general manager, streamlined governmental procedures and allowed for construction of State University facilities to be expedited. Private architects and contractors, who had previously been reluctant to take on State work, now were afforded control over design and a "climate essential to the creation of good design and good architecture" (Drexler 5).

The addition of a State University for the arts, initiated in 1967, was of special interest to Governor Rockefeller. Edward Larrabee Barnes was selected as the master planner, and unique to all of the SUNY campuses, a roster of the most gifted and highly regarded architects were chosen to design a structure on the campus. The architects selected included Philip Johnson and John Burgee, Paul Rudolph, Venturi and Rauch, Gunnar Birkerts & Associates and Gwathmey, Henderson & Siegel. With buildings amid construction, Purchase opened in the fall of 1971 in portable classrooms and the original clapboard farm house on the 500-acre site.

Significant Alteration(s) with Date(s): Type of change: Dance Building Restoration
Date: 2007 (c)
Persons/organizations involved: Robert Siegel Architects
Circumstances/reasons for change: The renovations to the Dance Building included the replacement of the entire skylight glass, roof drainage and perimeter waterproofing and interior renovations including new resilient flooring, lounge area seating, painting and ADA accessible doors on the main floor and from the Plaza.
Type of change: Student Services Building (new)
Date: 2006 (c)
Persons/organizations involved: Lead Agency:The State University Construction Fund, Design: Hom & Goldman
Circumstances/reasons for change: The Student Services Building is part of a campus master plan prepared by Hom + Goldman. The design of the building was a key factor, as this single structure became the focal point of the entire campus. The glass and brick building has a two-story atrium with a one-stop-shop for student services and a multi-media conference center. The new facility houses the admissions office, exhibition space, executive administrators and the President of the University. The building was utilized to create a new centralized campus center, by developing a courtyard, which bridges over the existing roadway, and relates to the new library addition also designed by Hom + Goldman Architects.
Type of change: Fort Awesome Residential Complex (new)
Date: 2006 (c)
Persons/organizations involved: Lead Agency: DASNY (Domitory Authority of the State of New York), Design: Einhorn Yaffee Prescot Acrhitects & Engineers, Contractor:J. Kokolakis Contracting, Inc
Circumstances/reasons for change: Fort Awesome is a 96,000 square feet, four story, brick building with an entry courtyard as well as a lower level retail. The construction of the dormitory will bring our total campus housing population to approximately 2600 beds, in an effort to meet current and projected campus goals.
The constuction of Fort Awesome is the first step towards the development of a campus "Commons." The Commons is intended as the setting for new retail and public programs, attracting students, faculty and the surrounding community.
Type of change: Mall/Plaza Deck Rehabilitation
Date: 2007 - Present
Persons/organizations involved: Lead Agency: The State University Construction Fund, Design: San Fanandre Justin Architects, Contractor: MPCC, Project Manager: Sayim Malik
Circumstances/reasons for change: The work includes removal and replacement of the existing waterproof membrane, deck drains and piping as well as original trees, landscaping and tile pavers. New pavers will differ from original, smaller tile and the site will receive new site furnishings, landscaping and lighting.
Type of change: Library Restoration/Addition
Date: 2008 (c)
Persons/organizations involved: Lead Agency: The State University Contruction Fund, Design / Kevin Hom + Andrew Goldman Architects P.C., Contractor: Summit Construction Services Group, Inc.
Circumstances/reasons for change: Located in the center of the Campus plaza, the Library, one of the originally designed buildings by Edwards Larrabee Barnes, has received a $6.9 million rehabilitation. The project included a major reworking of the Library’s internal circulation, relocation of the building’s entrance, new accessible elevator and ramp, new Information Commons, new Reading and Reference Rooms, a high-density storage area, and three new Computer Labs. The interior finishes have been updated along with new furniture.In an attempt to revitalize the Library’s main entrance and presence on the Plaza, the entrance has been relocated to the opposite side of the building. This shift, opposite our new Student Services Building, has generated a new center of campus activity for academic and social interaction on the plaza. The new entrance structure utilized a glass curtain wall system to create a transparent, light filled entry space during the day, while allowing the light to radiate outwards onto the plaza in the evening. The new built-in Circulation Desk area helps welcome visitors to the Library while a new stainless steel and terrazzo staircase, grants access down to the main floor or up to the 2nd floor’s new Reading Room.
Type of change: Visual Arts Exterior Envelope
Date: May 2010 (c)
Persons/organizations involved: Lead Agency: State University Construction Fund, Design: Robert Siegel Architects
Circumstances/reasons for change: This project will address the ongoing leaks and exterior envelope issues of the building and increase the building's energy efficiency. The scope of work includes replacement of all the existing exterior windows and doors, flat membrane roofs, and repairs to the sloped copper roofs. This includes the replacement of the existing glass monitors over the studios, faculty offices on the second floor, and modifying the existing Maass Gallery facade to open the gallery to the Plaza. New ‘Green Roofs’ are planned for a large portion of the bldg. and egress doors will be equipped with new automatic door openers. Due to the size and complexity of the project, the work will be done in multiple phases.
Type of change: Visual Arts Program Study
Date: May 2011 (e)
Persons/organizations involved: Design: Peter Gisolfi Architects
Circumstances/reasons for change: To execute a comprehensive program study of the School of Art & Design, located in the Visual Arts Building at Purchase College. The investigation will address the project scope and project budget, as well as assess overall feasibility of rehabilitating the structure for adaptive reuse in a manner consistent with all applicable codes, regulations, and accreditation standards. The investigation will address all aspects of the Building’s operations, management and use as a contemporary collegiate academic facility. The Program Study for the Visual Arts building will examine the current and future department programs space allocation and future growth needs. The Visual Arts building is an existing space designed in 1977 and in need of upgrades to the academic spaces as well as major mechanical systems. The program study will help guide renovations to meet current learning space needs and future program growth.
Type of change: Humanities Restoration
Date: July 2011
Persons/organizations involved: Lead Agency: State University Construction Fund, Design: Kliment Halsband
Circumstances/reasons for change: The Humanities Building, located on the south side of the central plaza, houses all programs associated with the Humanities department, including Journalism, Cinema Studies, and the College Newspaper. The building, which pre-dates changes in environmental health and safety regulations, energy conservation and ADA requirements, has not had a significant renovation since it was built. Its spaces also have not been adapted to pedagogical developments that have taken place since 1973. The project will address renovation of building interiors, mechanical/electrical/plumbing systems. It also includes replacement of the existing windows. The renovation will include hazardous materials abatement and bring it into compliance with construction and accessibility codes. The building will also meet the requirements to achieve a LEED Silver rating. The Program Study for the Humanities Building Renovation at the SUNY Purchase was commissioned by the State University Construction Fund and SUNY Purchase College to develop a program for the renovated building. The purpose of the program study is to verify findings in the July 2008 Space Utilization Study conducted by Perkins Eastman and collect additional information to develop a final program for the renovated Humanities Building.

Current Use: Purchase College continues to operate as a four-year public college for the State University of New York system. The college remains dedicated to a mixture of arts and liberal arts programs and maintains a body of roughly 4,000 students.

Current Condition: The Purchase College campus is in relatively good condition with water infiltration and damage currently being addressed by capital projects. Completed in the 1970s, the fifteen original buildings remain with the exception of a Theater Arts building that was never realized. Five additional complexes have been erected on the site including the Student Services Building, "Fort Awesome" Residential Building, The Student Center/Children's Center, Alumni Village Residential Complex and the Commons Residential Complex. Of all the new structures, the new Student Services Building and the Library addition cause the greatest interference with the original campus design. The Student Services Building obstructs the south-facing pastoral view from the mall and construction of the new building required an entrance relocation of the Henry Moore sculpture "Large Two Forms". Although the recent restoration plans attempted to be considerate of the original design aesthetic and intent of specific structures, the need for additional space has compromised the overall design and circulation plan.

General Description:

Designed as a "city within the country", architect Edward Larrabee Barnes created the master plan for Purchase College in 1967. The campus plan included a collection of buildings clustered around a plaza, surrounded by fields and meadows. In addition to Barnes, seven major architects were brought in to design the individual buildings. “The Purchase campus is organized around a paved mall 300 by 900 feet and is oriented from east to west. The design uses covered arcades flanked by trees to define pedestrian access to academic buildings on the north and south side of the campus. The mall serves as a raised pedestal for those buildings which by their function are areas of common use” (Drexler 8). Primary access to the buildings and the mall is one level up on the east-west axis.

Shaped in a cruciform shape, the largest building on the campus is the Performing Arts Center located on the west-end of the campus. The unadorned minimal facade is composed of the gray-brown brick and includes four theaters ranging in size from a 1400-seat concert hall to a 200-300 seat black box theater. The structure is accessible from the parking lots on either side of the complex through a mall underpass. The underpass links the theaters to the academic campus as well as the underground mall access area. A grand two-story lobby provides a common area for all four theaters and circulation to the mall.

Immediately to the left of the Performing Arts Center is the Music Instructional Building. Designed by Barnes, the building includes individual practice and private instruction rooms, rehearsal and classrooms space along with a large lecture hall and a recital hall.

The Purchase College Dance Building was the first facility in the United States to be constructed solely for the study and performance of dance. Designed in 1970 by Gunnar Birkerts and Associates, it houses 14 studios and a 270-seat Dance Theater Lab. “A single two-story academic level relates the large studios and smaller supporting spaces. The studio-corridor wall is opaque on the lower portion and above is sloped glass. Inside the studios the wall slope expands the space while admitting daylight reflected from the slope above the offices. The building was pulled away from the arcade to create a green area and natural light for the administrative offices, and also to expose the building to pedestrians” (Drexler 34). The design for the Dance Building was based on a successful collaboration with the Dean and Purchase faculty based upon their experience and consultations with other academic and professional institutions devoted to the teaching of dance (Marlin 154). The garden wall has a sloped top toward the inside.

“The Natural Science Building is designed to have semi-private and fixed elements facing south on the common court. The laboratories are grouped around a central riser system and placed toward the north for future expansion. Support activities, such as offices and tutorial labs, are placed at the perimeter” (Drexler 33). The building includes a central lecture hall and planetarium room. The exterior design features a juxtaposed curvilinear amphitheater and an undulating rectilinear roof line.

“The Venturi and Rauch designed Social Science Building occupies the full width of the site at the arcade to preserve the design concept of the campus plan. The south elevation is dominated by a large two-story window that brings light from above the arcade down into the first floor lobby. The east facade, together with that of the Humanities Building, forms the facade of the campus core and is developed as a single plane with small openings in a regular rhythm to enhance its scale. The west facade expresses the programmatic complexity of specified classrooms and generalized laboratory spaces, and achieves a smaller scale appropriate to the function as entrance and outdoor sitting space. Internally on the east side of the building is organized into offices, seminar rooms and reading rooms and into classrooms and labs on the west side” (Drexler 30).

The second structure designed by Venturi and Rauch with assistance of Gerod Clark, Arthur Jones, Denise Scott Brown and David Vaughan is the Humanities Building. Organized in three zones the east zone contains small scale spaces; the west zone contains medium sized spaces; and the interior zone contains large scale spaces, which do not require windows and have the highest degree of acoustical sensitivity. A large open-air arena is reminiscent of Alvar Aalto’s own studio in Munkkiniemi Finland (von Moos 166).

Designed by the team of Philip Johnson and John Burgee, the Neuberger Museum of Art was founded when Roy Neuberger donated his famous American Art collection in the fall of 1968. The Neuberger Museum of Art was the first building completed on the campus and initially provided classroom and studio space as well as functioning as a museum. In 1974 Philip Johnson suggested the design was intended to resemble a crankshaft and included identical 60-foot wide blocks that have shifted on a vertical access revealing similar exterior and interior spaces.

The Visual Arts Building is symbolized by an envelope of light which allows large interchange able studios and shops to receive maximum north light. The building varies in height and is set back on the east and west elevations to lend interest to the pedestrian walk and to respond to the human scale. The main open space court abutting the arcade acts as a social and cultural focus and features a two-story exhibition space above. The roof terrace over the shops responds t the landscaped cemetery space and the experimental studio and sculpture studio have their own work-study court connecting to research beyond the building (Drexler 25).

On the center of the mall is the Barnes designed Library Building and campus Post Office. The Library recently received a $6.1 million renovation and included a major reworking of the Library’s internal circulation, new Information Commons, new Reading and Reference Rooms, a high-density storage area, and three new Computer Labs. Entrance to the building was relocated from the west to the east end of the building (facing the new Student Services Building) and by way of a glass and primary colored facade, features a new accessible elevator and ramp.

The two Student Activities buildings located at the terminus of both east and west-side arcades are relatively minor structures that provide a transition from the academic court to the residential living space. The structures include indoor and outdoor dining space as well as offices and student union space.

The Residential Complex designed by Gwathmey, Henderson & Siegel represents a “U-shaped building complex encloses major outdoor open space providing transition from meadow to campus plan. The open-ended space to the south is in response to the location of future residential areas. The dormitory organizes student living accommodations initially into eight groups with entrance points at the corners of the main structure or along it as defined by its intersection with academic facilities (Drexler 41). The encircled dining hall is organized vertically and horizontally and modulated volumetrically (Arnell and Bickford 48-49).

The Health and Physical Education Building is located on the east side of the campus, on axis with the mall and the Performing Arts Center. Set back from both residential complexes the building has a glass-covered central hall and front them with rows of trees. The arcades are like the thread which makes it possible to string beads into a necklace” (Drexler 9-11).

"Insofar as any architectural concept is an assertion of a particular order and purpose, it will have the limitations peculiar to its own nature. the most obvious limitation of this concept is the linear configuration automatically imposed on each building abutting the arcades, regardless of the particular academic discipline it is meant to house. Since the building sites are sufficiently wide, in practice the limitation has only a minor effect on internal circulation: of the ten buildings concerned, only four have corridors longer than might have been the case with a different site configuration. Two of the buildings are set back from the arcade, and three, where they abut it, do not occupy the full width of the site, so that there is no loss of variety in this respect. Similarly, there were no planning restrictions on floor heights, distribution of building masses, or the design of entrances. On the other hand, all buildings use the same gray-brown brick, gray glass, and gray metal trim. And with one exception (Natural Science) all of them have hard-edges crisp contours in keeping with Barnes' theater and library groups dominating the mall.

Overriding these inherent and self-imposed limitations is a cardinal advantage: the arcades and the narrow sites reassert the primacy of the street, which is the distinctive experience made possible by a community of buildings. The arcades are an indispensable part of the composition: it is not enough simply to line up the buildings on either side of the mall and front them with rows of trees. The arcades are like the thread which makes it possible to string beads into a necklace (Drexler 9-11)."

Construction Period:

1971-1979

Original Physical Context:

The Purchase College campus was designed in the rural north-west section of Westchester County on the Connecticut boarder. Located on a former dairy farm, the Purchase College campus sits on a 500-plus acre estate settled in 1734 by Judge Thomas Thomas. The original farm site, built in the 1920s and occupied by the Chisholm family as a working farm until 1967, remains as an Administration complex on the campus.

Evaluation

Technical Evaluation:

The overwhelming unifying source of Purchase College was the use of the red-brown brick for the entire campus. The brick along with an anodized bronze aluminum glazing system give the campus the feel of a single design intention. Similar to many modern structures, the repetition of a common material such as the brick along with the use of prefabricated products, facilitate an efficient and cost effective solution to design.

Social:

Conceived shortly after the phrase ‘urban design’ was coined at Harvard in the late 1950s, the design for Purchase College speaks not only to the most cutting-edge concepts in campus design but to the theoretical struggle that faced the architecture, planning and design fields of the time. Barnes’ design was based on a rational and orderly composition that placed importance on social interaction, open space and the idea of a dense, urban village. Centering all structures at the core of the 500-acre campus allowed for open space and the rural qualities of the site to be preserved. This also allowed for a walkable campus, one in which prominence was given to pedestrians and cars were limited to the periphery of the site.

Cultural & Aesthetic:The design of Purchase College is a excellent example of 1970s urban design and campus planning concepts. The complex is often described within the Brutalist architectural style for its rough and block-like appearance. The use of brick as the dominant material was described at the time as "masterly" and functions as a unifying element across the individually designed structures. The 1983 issue of Abitare highlights the design accomplishments at Purchase College and state, "the spacious halls [of the Performing Arts Center] inside allow the designer to create vast surfaces without break, and to lend significance to the architecture solely by means of the interplay of elementary volumes, in a quest for characteristic forms of the expression of the minimal."

Historical:

The development of a State University for the Arts in New York State was quite notable for its time and was eagerly awaited by the press and students alike. Described in publications across the world, Purchase College was an anomaly of cutting-edge design created by great architects, not only for the public good, but in celebration of artistic achievement. Purchase was unique in that it was a complete design of a college campus and not a piecemeal approach to growth and additions. In 1971 the Museum of Modern Art featured an exhibition of the campus design entitled, Architecture for the Arts” the State University of New York College at Purchase. Throughout its forty-year existence, the campus design as well as its origins have been widely discussed and debated. Recently, the campus was featured in the Academy Award winning film Black Swan and as the backdrop of a Vogue China photo-shoot. In a 1997 Neuberger Museum of Art exhibition catalog entitled, Urban Suburban: The Architecture of Purchase College, curator Paul Goldberger states, “the architecture of Purchase stands as evidence that society places the arts at its center, not at its periphery. A government does not build a campus such as this one for an activity it considers trite.”

General Assessment:Created by the most talented American architects and championed by Nelson Rockefeller, the country’s most generous Governor, Purchase College set the bar high for the importance of public architecture and the world of the arts. Master planner Edward Larrabee Barnes’ design based on Thomas Jefferson’s historic University of Virginia campus, is notable not for its individual buildings but for its overall campus plan. Built during the apex of modern architecture, Purchase College signifies the arc of campus planning in the United States during a time in which funding for education and public services were at its highest.
Although relatively intact, Purchase College has recently experienced a number of major renovations and additions. The most significant alteration has been the addition of the Student Services Building on the eastern end of the mall. The addition, which closed off the view from the mall of the surrounding landscape and the relocation of the beloved Henry Moore sculpture, is similar in its destruction and criticism to the Stanford White Library on the mall at the University of Virginia. The State University Construction Fund and the campus facilities offices have done a relatively good job in their stewardship of the campus and the restoration of its parts. A heritage site plan is currently in place to oversee the renovation of the original farm buildings but an overall plan that takes in the significance of the 1970s campus plan should be put into place.
Purchase College, its designers, its champions and its ideology speak to the development of public architecture in the twentieth century as well as the unique rise and development of the State University of New York system. As Paul Goldberger continues in his 1997 exhibition statement, “it remains an achievement unequaled in American public architecture since - a collection of buildings of the highest intent, designed to create a place in which the teaching of the arts would be nurtured and honored. Architecture has rarely been given so laudable a mission, so clearly a place in which to prove that it can matter. At Purchase College a government expressed faith in architecture, and in the context of the attitudes of the 1990s, that attitude alone defines this project as historic, and makes it impossible to view it as anything less heroic.”

Documentation

Text references:

Drexler, Arthur. Architecture for the Arts: The State University of New York College at Purchase. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1971.

Bleeker, Samuel E.. The Politics of Architecture: A perspective on Nelson Rockefeller. New York: The Rutledge Press and Nelson Rockefeller Collection, 1981.

John and Dominique de Menil first conceived of the Rothko Chapel in 1964 as a Catholic chapel affiliated with the University of St. Thomas. However, the plan for the Chapel gradually grew away from the more traditional worship space envisioned by the University, and in 1969, the de Menils decided instead to donate the Chapel to the Institute of Religion and Human Development, which provided chaplaincy training in the Texas Medical Center. By 1972, the Chapel’s mission had diverged from that of the Institute, as well, and the chapel became an independent entity. The Chapel’s official mission is to “provide a place of worship, meditation and prayer for persons of all faiths; to provide a forum for people to gather and explore spiritual bonds common to all; to discuss human problems of worldwide interest; and to share a spiritual experience, each loyal to his or her belief, each respectful of the beliefs of others.”

Architectural and other Designer(s): In the fall of 1964, Mark Rothko, commissioned by the de Menils, began work on a series of paintings for the future University of St. Thomas chapel, and Philip Johnson, the architect of the University’s campus as well as the de Menils’ home, began designing the chapel in consultation with Rothko. The artist and the architect were continually at odds over their distinct ideas for the building, with Rothko objecting to the monumentality of Johnson’s plan as distracting from the artwork. Johnson finally withdrew from the project in 1967 and turned it over to Howard Barnstone, the supervising architect on this and other Johnson buildings in Texas. Barnstone and his partner Eugene Aubry developed the design in accordance with Rothko’s wishes. After Rothko’s death in 1970, Barnstone had left the project because of illness, and Aubry asked Johnson to act as a consultant in completing the design.

Others associated with Building/Site: John and Dominique de Menil were Houston philanthropists who promoted modern art, including founding the Rothko Chapel and the adjacent Menil Collection.
Barnett Newman was an artist whose sculpture The Broken Obelisk stands in front of the Rothko Chapel.

Significant Alteration(s) with Date(s): Because Rothko died in February 1970, before the building’s construction, corrections to the Chapel’s lighting he most likely would have made, originally went unrealized: the skylight he had designed from his studio in New York was not adapted to the brighter Texas sunshine, and the screen or “diaper” he had prescribed for the overhead light was not included in construction. Attempts to correct the harsh lighting were made in 1974 (e), when the original skylight was covered with a diffusing scrim, and in 1978 (e), when Ove Arup & Partners, the London engineering firm that worked on the Menil Collection, installed a baffle system to deflect natural light.
The chapel was closed in January 1999 (e) for an eighteen-month, $1.8 million interior and exterior restoration, overseen by McReynolds Architects of Houston. Dominique de Menil had hired McReynolds for the restoration before her death in December 1997. A new ultraviolet-glass skylight was installed and the baffle replaced with a smaller one, further correcting the Chapel’s lighting problems. The paintings, the largest of which is nearly 25 feet high, had originally been lowered into the building through the ceiling; a door was enlarged so that they could be removed without opening the skylight. The paintings were studied by conservators at the Menil Collection and reinstalled on the interior walls, which had been resurfaced with gray gypsum to imitate the raw concrete Rothko had envisioned. (The paintings had previously been treated between 1980 and 1987.) A new climate-control chamber was created in the foyer, which involved lowering the entry ceiling from 18 feet to 12 feet. Finally, a new foundation was laid with foundation piers sunk from the original 20 feet to 55 feet, twice the building’s height. This action was taken because the oak trees along Sul Ross Street had absorbed moisture over the decades, so the ground on the Chapel’s Sul Ross side would dry faster than on the opposite side; half of the chapel had sunk almost two inches, and a crack had appeared in the west wall.

Current Use: The Rothko Chapel is an independent, interfaith chapel that serves as a meditative space, a venue for religious ceremonies, and a forum for discussions on human rights.

Current Condition: Since the chapel’s much-needed restoration in 1999-2000, the building appears to be in good condition.

General Description:

In keeping with Rothko’s wishes, the Chapel is a simple brick-exterior, flat-roofed, one-story building, entirely different from Johnson’s original idea for a white stucco, concrete block building monumentally topped by a pyramid. Live oak trees surround the Chapel, located next to a reflecting pool and the Cor-Ten steel sculpture Broken Obelisk. The building is irregularly octagonal in plan, with four wider principal walls alternating with four secondary walls, and with a rectangular apse and recessed floor. Rothko carefully configured his seven black canvases and seven plum-colored canvases; there is a triptych of paintings on each of the north, east, and west walls, one painting on the south wall, and one painting on each of the diagonal walls.

The Rothko Chapel is situated one block west of the University of St. Thomas campus, with which it was originally affiliated. During the course of several years prior to 1972, the de Menils had acquired a number of entire blocks in this neighborhood of largely 1920s bungalows, with the intention of building storage and study centers for their art collection (which would eventually be housed in the 1987 Menil Collection building one block west of the Chapel). The Neartown area of Houston, where the Chapel is located, was known as a center of Bohemian culture in the 1960s and 1970s.

Evaluation

Technical Evaluation:

Rothko objected to the sterility of white walls and experimented with shades of gray before finally insisting that the Chapel’s materials should remain unpainted and in their natural states. The interior walls would consist of concrete blocks with uncolored plaster sprayed on the surface. At a meeting with Aubry two weeks before his own death, Rothko approved samples of the brick for the exterior façade and the asphalt blocks for the floor.

Social:

Although originally conceived as a Catholic chapel, the Rothko Chapel soon became an independent, interfaith place for spiritual contemplation. It has been called the world’s first broadly ecumenical center. The Chapel has come to signify the ecumenical power of art and has fostered discussions about social justice and human rights, bringing together such figures from around the world as the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, and Jimmy Carter. The Chapel also gives out periodic awards in recognition of human rights efforts. In keeping with the Chapel’s spirit of peace and equality, the statue Broken Obelisk, installed in front of the Chapel in 1971, was dedicated to the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Cultural & Aesthetic:Rothko’s extensive input in the Chapel’s architectural design resulted in marked interplay between his paintings and the building’s plan. Unlike with his two previously commissioned series—the 1958 murals originally intended for the Four Seasons Restaurant in New York City’s Seagram building, and the 1962 murals for the Holyoke Center at Harvard—Rothko was not painting for a predesigned space but was able to help shape the setting for his work. He did not begin the paintings until the plan and interior walls were decided. The Chapel is significant not only as a work of modernist architecture but also, because of Rothko’s paintings, as a work of modern art. As such, the Chapel blurs the line between architecture and art, challenging this distinction in both its aesthetic effect and the struggle involved in Johnson and Rothko’s attempted collaboration in its design.

Historical:

The Chapel was named to the National Register of Historic Places in 2001, 30 years after its construction, an exception to the normal 50 year limit. According to Suna Umari, the Chapel’s executive director at the time, "The committee that approved the chapel's designation felt that because in the last 25 years there was enough documentation and recognition of it there was no question about its significance. Additionally, the fact that the artist, Mark Rothko, passed away some years ago means there will never be another one created.” Rothko’s suicide a year before the Chapel’s opening influenced some critics and visitors to view the darkly-colored paintings inside as bleak and disheartening, but the artworks are otherwise appreciated as expressing a sense of solitude and spirituality that transcends their color. Considered Rothko’s greatest work, the Chapel is internationally reputed, though not so much for the architecture itself as for the art that dictates it. The Chapel has been compared in importance to the Chapel of the Rosary in Vence, France, by Henri Matisse and the Chapel in Ronchamp, France, by Le Corbusier.

General Assessment:The Rothko Chapel is a monument to the legacy of Mark Rothko, as well as that of the de Menils, who played a key role in developing Houston’s cultural life. The Chapel has long been a popular tourist site in the city, where it is often viewed in conjunction with the nearby Menil Collection; in fact, attendance at the Chapel doubled from 20,000 to 40,000 people per year after the museum opened in 1987.
Internationally celebrated, the Chapel has also inspired other renowned works, such as the 1971 classical music piece “Rothko Chapel” by composer Morton Feldman, which continues to be performed (for instance, by the San Francisco Symphony in February 2011).

Governor Nelson Rockefeller commissioned Philip Johnson to design the New York State Pavilion for the 1964-1965 World’s Fair after Johnson received critical acclaim for his design of the New York State Theater at Lincoln Center.

Philip Johnson was originally commissioned to design only two structures for the pavilion site: the “Tent of Tomorrow,” which was to serve as a fashion theater, and the “Theaterama,” a circular theater to display 360-degree movies. While in the midst of designing these two structures, Governor Nelson Rockefeller decided that he wanted New York State, the host state for the World’s Fair, to have the tallest building at the fair. After a long debate between Governor Rockefeller and Robert Moses, the fair’s corporate president, who had set a height rule for the fair and was initially against making the New York State Pavilion the event’s tallest structure. Rockefeller convinced the State to fund the addition of three observation towers to the pavilion site to tower over the other structures. This added $2.5 million to the cost of the New York State Pavilion project.

During the latter half of 1963, a decision was made to change the use of the Tent of Tomorrow. The original plan was to use the space as a fashion theater. However, plans changed during the design process and the Tent of Tomorrow was to be designed as an art exhibition space instead. The switch of use led to a change in design elements, and Philip Johnson had to incorporate air conditioning and a mezzanine into the structure in order to control the climate for the art.

The New York State Pavilion was meant to stand out and illustrate the accomplishments of the State of New York as the host of the World’s Fair and as a center for arts, culture, and recreation.

Significant Alteration(s) with Date(s): 1977: The Tent of Tomorrow’s roof was removed after several plastic panels blew off the structure and landed on the Grand Central Parkway.
1991-1993: Philip Johnson was appointed architect of the interior renovation for Theaterama, which is turned the Queens Theater in the Park. The new theater had a 500-seat main auditorium and a 99-seat studio theater.

Current Use: The observation towers and the Tent of Tomorrow were abandoned. The Theaterama structure is used today as the Queens Theater in the Park.

Current Condition: After the 1964-1965 World’s Fair ended, the city found no further use for the configuration of the New York State Pavilion. Besides the Theaterama which is now the Queens Theater in the Park, the rest of the pavilion is abandoned and in disrepair.

General Description:

The pavilion site was divided into three sections, and occupied nearly all of its 129,392-square-foot site, the largest amount of square feet devoted to a state sponsored exhibit.

The Tent of Tomorrow, the assembly hall, was the main feature of the pavilion. It is elliptical in plan, stretching 250' x 350' and is supported by sixteen concrete pylons. The structure’s roof originally supported multicolored panels of Plexiglas that were suspended on cables attached to a steel roof rim. The floor of the Tent of Tomorrow had a Texaco map of all of New York State, which was the world’s largest terrazzo map at the time. The tent had exhibition space on the promenade and mezzanine levels, looking over the plastic map of the state.

The Theaterama, the lowest structure of the pavilion site, is a 100' diameter circular theater (sometimes referred to as the “Circarama”) and was used to project 360-degree films. Surrounding the pavilion’s theater’s fa?ade, there were large art installations by famous pop artists on display. Featured artists included: Roy Lichtenstein, Alexander Liberman, Robert Indiana, James Rosenquist, John Chamberlain, Robert Mallary, Peter Agostini, Robert Rauschenberg, Ellsworth Kelly and Andy Warhol.

The northernmost portion of the site features a grouping of three circular observation towers that are 90, 185, and 250' tall. Slender concrete columns support the circular, 64'-in-diameter observation platforms, as well as exterior, glass-walled elevators that allowed access to the three structures. The shortest of the three towers housed restaurants, while the other two taller pavilions had open observation decks. The two shorter towers have single-story platforms while the tallest tower has a two-story platform.

Construction Period:

Slip-formed concrete, cable suspension roof

Original Physical Context:

The 1964-1965 World’s Fair was dedicated to “Man’s Achievement on a Shrinking Globe in an Expanding Universe” and its theme was “Peace Through Understanding.” It was the largest fair ever held in the United States. Robert Moses, then New York City Parks Commissioner, was the corporate president of the fair and took on the project in hopes that its income would support the completion of Flushing Meadows Park. In order to cut costs for the 1964-1965 World’s Fair, Moses reused the master plan, infrastructure, and roads from the 1939 World’s Fair that was also held in Flushing Meadows Park.

Evaluation

Technical Evaluation:

The Tent of Tomorrow featured the largest suspension roof in the world at the time, measuring over 50,000 square feet. The roof, which had two outer ring girders and a central tension ring tied together with forty-eight double sets of cables, was lifted into position at the rate of six feet per day by thirty-two synchronized jacks.

While the suspension roof was not a new concept at the time, the Tent of Tomorrow’s roof was an early example of this type of roof’s ability to overcome instability in high winds, something that had just recently been developed by engineers.

The New York State Pavilion was also technically innovative with its use of slip-formed concrete. For Theaterama’s construction, concrete was poured around steel reinforcement and the forms, which were dimensionally 3 feet high and 12 feet in diameter, were raised at the rate of one foot per hour. As concrete was poured at the top of the form, concrete at the bottom of the form was already three hours old and set. For the observation towers, contractors used 3-foot-high slip-forms to pour the concrete and moved at a rate of about 1 foot per hour.

The Fiberglas panels were installed while this process was happening. Approximately 1,500 multicolored translucent panels, attached to each other with a weathertight batten system, were used in the construction of the roof. The translucent Fiberglas panels were placed into an aluminum grid that was fabricated by Kalwall Corporation and fit over the strung cables.

Social:

By commissioning Philip Johnson, one of the architects of the Lincoln Center Complex, Governor Rockefeller wanted to showcase New York State as a center for arts and culture, as well as a home for great Modern architecture.

Cultural & Aesthetic:By using concrete and metal to create enormous pavilions with round and elliptical plans, Johnson was developing futuristic forms by subtly referencing flying saucers. Overall, the design of the structure was meant to be playful and welcoming, as is evidenced by its use of bright colors and open-air design.

Historical:

The New York State Pavilion was considered by Franz Schulze, author of Philip Johnson: Life and Work, as one of Philip Johnson’s “zanier” designs and considered it “unlike any other work he [Philip Johnson] did at the time.” The pavilion’s enormous concrete columns in the Tent of Tomorrow can be seen as a precursor to the type of monumentality used in Philip Johnson’s later work.

The design of the pavilion was critically acclaimed. Ada Louise Huxtable, then architecture critic for the New York Times, described the pavilion as a, "runaway success...a sophisticated frivolity...seriously and beautifully constructed. This is 'carnival' with class."

General Assessment:

Documentation

Text references:

Garn, Andrew. Exit to Tomorrow: World’s Fair Architecture, Design, Fashion, 1933-2005. New York: Universe Publications, 2007.
Johnson, Philip. Philip Johnson: the Architect in His Own Words. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1994.
“Moses Builds a Fair,” Architectural Forum, USA, v. 120, 1964, pp. 64-77
“New York World’s Fair: the biggest building story ever told,” American Builder, USA, v. 86, 1964, whole issue.
Remembering the Future: the New York World’s Fair from 1939-1964. New York: Rizzoli, 1989.
Schulze, Franz. Philip Johnson: Life and Work. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1994.
Stern, Robert A.M. New York 1960: Architecture and Urbanism Between the Second World War and the Bicentennial. New York: Monacelli Press, 1995.
“Suspension Roof is Installed on State Pavilion at Fair,” New York Times, October 29, 1963.
Wilson, Forest. Emerging Form in Architecture: Conversations With Lev Zetlin. Boston: Cahners Books, 1975.

Others associated with Building/Site: Original owner/patron: Philip C. Johnson
Names: The Glass House was frequented by many outstanding personalities in the Arts and Architecture fields between 1947 to 2005, including Marcel Breuer, Landis Gores, John Johansen and Eliot Noyes
Association: New Canaan, Ct. Historical Society
Event: House Tours

Current Use: Of whole site: Museum compound
Of principal components: Glass House – former residence, Brick House – former guest house, Painting Gallery – formerly and currently an art gallery, Sculpture Gallery – formerly and currently a sculpture gallery, Lake Pavilion on Pond – artistic, architectural model based upon the scale of dwarf’s quarters in Ducal Palace at Mantua, Ghost House – welded, square sectional steel frame with walls of chain-link fencing – used as frame for lily garden, built in tribute to Frank Gehry, Library/Study – used as a library, study and studio, Visitor’s Center – (referred to as da Monsta by Philip Johnson) conceived as future visitor’s center, Entrance Gates, Kirstein Tower and three vernacular buildings, known as Grainger, Calluna and Popestead. Of other elements: steel footbridge, diving platform, Schnabel sculpture. Of surrounding areas: lawns, rolling, landscaped hills, stone walls, stream, and paths and driveway of crushed stone
Comments: Because of the historic significance of the Glass House, alterations to the architecture are prohibited. Proposed improvements include the installation of heat and smoke detectors, emergency lights, horn/strobe alarms, and increased handicapped accessibility.

Current Condition: Of whole site: Excellent – being prepared as National Trust visitation site
Of principal components: Excellent
Of other elements: The fountain that at one time provided a tall spray of water adjacent to the Pavilion and the Pavilion’s pool jets are no longer operative, and some of the timbers that make up the observation platform and the steps along the pathways have become deteriorated. The various components are in good condition and retain the appearance they had when first constructed.

Of surrounding areas: rolling hills, landscaped and tended

General Description:

Glass House is a one story, 1800 square foot glass and steel building. A rectangular prism, 32 feet by 56 feet in plan with a height of 10 ½ feet. Walls consist entirely of 18-feet- wide floor-to-ceiling single plate-glass sheets, secured between black painted steel piers. Stock H-beams anchored the glass with angle brackets. An off-center cylindrical mass of brick, which has a fireplace on one side and the entrance to the bathroom inside the cylinder on the other protrudes though the flat roof. The foundation is a brick platform with slab for frost footing. Like the floor of the house, which is laid in a herringbone pattern, the cylinder is constructed of glazed brick in various shades of deep reds and browns with lighter colored flecks. Otherwise, the interior is completely open, with low cabinets and bookshelves serving as area dividers. The other major division in the living area, aside from the brick cylinder, is the long line of 42-inch high cabinets which contain the kitchen, Two panels on top of this unit, when opened and folded back, provide a black linoleum work surface. The sink, two refrigerators, a stove are all included in the one unit, besides a liquor cabinet which opens into the living area. Heating runs within the floor and ceiling.

Construction Period:

Original Physical Context:

Name of surrounding area: New Canaan, Ct.
Type of area: Open fields, stone walls, and scattered clusters of trees; from the road along the ridge, the land gently slopes downward westerly toward a bluff, where it then descends steeply to a small pond and wooded area on the western ridge of the property.
Visual relation: Site provides full sunrise/sunset exposure
Other relations: Brick House (1949) (1952 floor plan remodeled) one story 1000 square feet building of wood frame construction, measuring 18 feet by 52 feet built of Flemish Bond Brick with façade broken by single black painted door at west and three circular windows at the east, flat roof with sheet metal cornice: architect, Philip Johnson; builder, John C. Smith, New Canaan, Ct. Pool (1955/6) circular concrete pool with rectangular platform and an element in the geometric composition of the site: architect and builder, E.W. Howell Co., Philip Johnson, owner and architect. Lake Pavilion (1962) 32 feet square pre-cast concrete structure with open colonnades situated on man-made pond. Painting Gallery (1965) 60 feet by 72 feet earth berm construction in the shape of an asymmetrical four-leaf-clover, inspired by classical tomb: architect, Philip Johnson, builder, E.W. Howell Co. Sculpture Gallery (1970) glass roofed gallery with complex, five star-like pattern of intersecting rectangles and triangles, pitched roofs made of semi-mirrored glass panes set in metal channels, five levels, inspired by Greek villages: architects, Philip Johnson and John Burgee, builder, Louis E. Lee Co., New Canaan, Ct.Entrance Gates (1977) concrete and aluminum construction: architect, Philip Johnson, builder Louis E. Lee Co., New Canaan, Ct. Library/Study (1980) 15 feet by 20 feet reinforced concrete box in plan and 10 feet high with intersecting cylinder 12 feet in diameter, along roofline cone changes to 8 feet in height truncated cone tapering to 3 feet in diameter oculus: architects, Philip Johnson and John Burgee, builder, Louis E. Lee Co., New Canaan, Ct.Ghost House (1984) open structure of chain-link fencing that refers to separate work of Frank Gehry and Venturi Scott Brown.Lincoln Kirstein Tower (1985) inspired by the choreography of George Balanchine and a tribute to friend and former classmate, Lincoln Kirstein: architect, Philip Johnson. da Monsta (1995) 30 feet by 40 feet highly irregular shaped plan, corners forming acute angles and walls with curving dimensions, inspired by the architecture of Frank Stella: architect, Philip Johnson. Three Vernacular Buildings on site: Grainger (1735 farmhouse renovated ca. 1999) used as a retreat, graffiti window; Calluna Farms (ca. 1890, remodeled 1980, renovated 2000) residence of David Whitney; Popestead (completed as a barn in late 19th century then remodeled as a house in 1920’s and again by Johnson in 1996).Art Collection of Philip Johnson includes works by: John Chamberlain, Lynn Davis, Michael Heizer, Donald Judd, Ibram Lassaw, Andrew Lord, Brice Marden, Robert Morris, Bruce Nauman, Robert Rauschenberg, David Stella, Julian Schnabel, George Segal, Cindy Sherman, Frank Stella and Andy Warhol.

Evaluation

Technical Evaluation:

Original function maintained, endured long term stress, created great volume inn glass, captured the drama of the site, flexible floor plan, spaces serve dual purpose, outdoor/indoor living

Social:

Cultural & Aesthetic:Play of light and relationship to surrounding landscape gains significance as representative of modernist architecture of the International style, major collection of contemporary art and sculpted landscape, the Glass House represents a survey of architecture and architectural elements which showcase innovations spanning each decade of Philip Johnson’s career. Represents crucial breakthrough in design.

Historical:

A masterwork of modern American architecture. Epitomizes the International Style and is a premier representative of Modernism. Johnson acknowledged the influence of Mies van de Rohe upon its design as to form and materials and recognized the Glass House as a variation of van de Rohe’s design for Farnsworth House, Plano, Illinois.

General Assessment:The Glass House has national significance because of its association with Philip Johnson whose work had a profound impact on twentieth century architecture. With each structural addition after completion of the Glass House Johnson designed and used the building additions on the site to illustrate his developing architectural philosophy. Features of many of his major subsequent works are suggested by elements first introduced into various structures on the Glass House compound.